God of the Default


God of the Default is not a description of God of any kind. It's about a state of consciousness in an individual about the soothing idea that can solve almost anything that is contradicting their belief system just by mere suggestion of its (God's) existence rather than finding anything meaningful logically. It's almost limitless: what this God can or cannot do; however, it all depends upon the defaults and their idea of possibility and impossible.

God is a philosophical idea, and to know this idea one must struggle with the epistemology, ontology, metaphysical inquiry into this idea. We need to understand its limits, power, and scope of what this idea can or cannot represent. We also, during this inquiry, understand that the idea of God is subjected to many laws, including laws of thermodynamics and nature, biology and economics, and even the laws of quantum mechanics and spacetime. The [idea] that can be a subject of inquiry is the God that is also limited by paradoxes, both academic (logical and literary) and ones including spatial displacement.

However, the God of the default is neither an idea nor a theory about God since it's all about default. Defining Defaults: “An individual with God as an abstract or very well-defined idea as humanized, supernatural, or even propagating it as energy that has no meaning under the philosophical and logical scrutiny but exists only in the verbal definition or the written accounts of the person, sect, cult, or followers to soothe his/her/their idea of reality and societal pillars e.g., morality, ethics, integrity, justice without invoking the need to study, debate, arguments, or analysis is considered a default. In a more explainable manner, those who choose God as a very neatly defined mechanism to cope with the mechanism of knowing rather than finding the philosophy, epistemology, and metaphysical meaning behind that God.

They can argue with precision for the God. For them, it can be anything, including energy, vibes, friend, son, father, or many human-level representations. It can be a supernatural entity that is omnipotent, omniscient and also for them it can be a very personal God. It's a rationalized anchor to things that they either don’t understand, don't want to understand, and having this God close to them helps them keep their sanity on many levels. These individuals are the ones I call defaults.

A default settings option on a system’s GUI is the setting that is reloaded or calibrated. If you don't understand the system, do not tweak and leave it on default. If you know a little about it, you can learn more by tweaking the interface, and if somehow you messed up the tweaks, then you can press default to begin again. Experts are the ones who always tweak and enjoy the program to their liking, but defaults come system-ready.

This is what a cultural installation is: a god that is beyond the academic discussion not because it's almighty but because it's so rudimentary that under cognition-based inquiry its fragile nature is revealed, never to be hidden again under the cloak of super naturalism. This God never struggles with anything since its examination is prohibited by the defaults themselves. Its epistemological role is limited to stabilizing beliefs, it absorbs any contradiction through elastic behaviors, and a cognitive painkiller against logical struggle.

If we examine this God through the lens of ontology, we can make certain distinctions that this God brings more ignorance and less intellectualism to the civilization, which inherently is a burden upon the defaults themselves. While the philosophical God originates from means of natural and philosophical inquiry, the God of the defaults is culturally installed prior to inquiry. So it's "second-order and derivative," and it exists as a reaction to uncertainty, which means it is not 'Being-itself' but rather a preservation mechanism in disguise. So the above argument can be articulated as that the God of defaults can only be sustained by means of epistemic avoidance. It's escapism from examination to exist indefinitely. This immunity through prohibition of inquiry prevents it from inviting paradox (e.g., omnipotence paradox, problem of evil, causality debates). This cultural insulation-driven social fencing is against the defaults themselves, not against scholars.

To society, this God is as harmful as it comes. Growth needs factors, and this insulation against friction is also against refinements of society. With no means to evolve, through slight efforts of reforms are met with brutal suppression and labeled as rebellion against the society itself. It's a society with frozen moral values where critical analysis even on paper is considered blasphemous literature. This kind of structure is very keen to originate many types of default gods. Each individual can have their own while for an observer that is too many gods; we must not forget that the same God in many disguises, even a million disguises. Tweak a practice a little and you can have your own lore related to that God, your own sets of moral principles and your own rituals, prayers, and sects. This, even if it seems evolution, this is a cyclic modification to achieve a pseudo-superiority against other disguises of the God. This is called the dilemma of the defaults.

It's a weakness to tolerance for ambiguity, and as this system collapses, the existential fragility is so unprecedented that these defaults are never prepared for the collapse. These societies lose their entire interpretive framework. But even if the default’s God is ontologically weak, understand that it's socially all-powerful. It's so powerful that any friction that challenges its authority it can halt its progress including science, technology, literature, art of any form, and even the discussion among peers. This is a dream come true for the incompetent weaklings but structurally in charge. Societies like these are their safe havens to mold, dismantle, corrupt, threaten, and even subjugate any institution or individual for the gains and means of their existence. These can be in groups, institutions, and even in power to govern. States dominated by this kind are doomed to observe the bottom of the barrel.

However, the external reasons always prevail to penetrate this insulation of the defaults. The god of defaults is less about this God and more about the nature of the defaults. The defaults in many cases are even aware and enlightened about the insulation but evade the manner of inquiry. Why? Many reasons can be listed or thought of, but what is the most fascinating for me is the idea of belonging to a greater truth.

Intrinsically, those who avoid are evading their own psychological assessment and analysis of the inquiry. There are many kinds of defaults, but the ones with the evade mechanism are those who put efforts to keep insulation intact and avoid friction on a regular basis. These are the ones from which the majority of the defaults learn the way to install this philosophically weak but strong social god. These evaders originate linguistic jargon to derail any critical inquiry, epistemological review, and social tension. The indescribable god doesn't exist because no philosophical God, but only the God of Defaults is unscrutinized.

The default mindset is primary while the God is secondary because in the end it's a collective ego defense mechanism. This should be defined as a theological error; rather it's an anthropological blueprint of protected fragility disguised as sacred mystery for every defaulter.

Are those who inquire resistant from the insulation? Certainly not. To be a part of a functioning society, those who inquire must understand when to inquire. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a liberal inquiry? Never; it's just an understanding that if collapse is imminent, pushing it can cause too much rubble rather than reform, which means ‘To inquire does not mean to destabilize recklessly’. Those who tweak are not superior because those are the ones who give legitimacy to the narratives of defaults. If tweaks don't exist, the dilemma will become a reality. This is not philosophy; it's biology of social cohesion, institutions, and moral coordination. The god of defaults is not a critique; it's a recognition of a process that always and must prevail in every civilization's story. So now the questions that I want to propose: “How do you know that you are not a part of the insulation maintenance crew? Do you even know if you are not a default?”

—Dinesh Mandora     

Dinesh Mandora All rights reserved©

-----------------------------------------------------------------

( This article is not for copying. It is prohibited to use the above text anywhere else without the permission of the author.)  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Same Ship Theseus

Image
Ship of Theseus: If all the parts of a ship are changed, will it remain the same ship? - A question on identity and change. The question is of philosophy, not fundamental physics. same as the question of free will, which is of philosophy, not fundamental p hysics. But do these questions hold authenticity if answered through the philosophical means of physics? Well, by the sheer biological process, you and I are not the men we used to be a year ago. Not physically, because every cell has been replaced by the body itself. A new body created by the old body! A process of which you are not even aware and which continues throughout life. Then how do you say that you are the same as you were yesterday? Or the body is not the same now! If you are not the body then what are you? Also, not emotionally, since you have accumulated new ways, experiences, and new means of understanding the world, society, and reality around you. So does all this mean that  you are not you but another vers...
Read more

इतिहास से सीखा ?

Image
मुझे नहीं लगता है भारतीयों को अपना इतिहास लिखना भी आता है और इसीलिए जनमानस को इतिहास पढ़ना भी नहीं आता है।  ज्यादातर तो मैंने यही पाया है की किसी भी करैक्टर के बारे में बात करते समय तथाकथित भारतीय इतिहासकारों ने अधिकतर समय उनका बस mythologization ही किया है। यहाँ तक की राजा अपनी माँ के गर्भ से सीधा अपनी माता और पिता के बीच संभोग से नहीं किसी ना किसी प्रकार के Divine Intervention से ही पैदा होते है।  ये Divine इंटरवेंशन का  एक कारण  यह भी है की सामान्य बुद्धि यह समझने में विफल है की असामान्य लोग कुछ नहीं होते है।  राजा-रंक, आम- खास, चपरासी -अधिकारी, संत-शैतान सब एक ही समाज में एक साथ विचरते है और इस बात की प्रबल सम्भावना भी है की आप एक दूसरे के पड़ोसी है। 16वी सदी में जापान में एक तोयोतोमी हिदेयोशी(Toyotomi Hideyoshi) नाम का एक बड़ा सामंती राजा हुआ।  वो एक Daimyo था जो की एक बड़ा ओहदा होता है। अपने जन्म के मूल रूप से वो एक सामान्य आदमी था जिसने लार्ड ओडा नोबुनागा के पास एक सैनिक के रूप में अपना सफर शुरू किया लेकिन काबिलियत के दम पर ऊपर पंहुचा। Daimyo बनने के लिए...
Read more

My Logic is Undeniable

Image
Question: If human morals are an extension of biological intelligence and social adaptation, might digital intelligence eventually develop its own morals? Digital intelligence does not need moral and ethical code, It never falls for these conundrum. Our moral and ethical codes aren't natural they are just artificial construct to survive. Its all the survival of the sentient brain. Why do a machine need and moral obligation to Kill or Nurture? The more higher the IQ and intellect the more ignorant it becomes for the lesser life form. Lets say we have created a legit artificial intelligence. As I have said previously. If its artificial it can not be intelligent and vice versa. So in it's natural state if that intelligence seek all human knowledge and value unworthy of its existence there is no moral or ethical code stopping it to wipe us out overnight. Someone will says laws like Asimov’s Law of Robotics will hold but they are for mindless machines not brainless machines. Asimov’...
Read more